In my column this morning, I’m practically channeling Joe Carter on federalism! The federal structure of the Constitution is important. I’d oppose a federal law banning state-level individual mandates, for instance. But there is a strong case to be made for arguing against the individual mandate as such, imposed by any level of government, rather than buying into the federalist argument made by a certain Republican presidential candidate.

Here’s the Cliff Notes version:

[W]hat Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts may not raise the same constitutional questions as what Barack Obama did nationally. But many of the people who helped devise the Massachusetts law had similar designs nationally. Romney is making arguments about Massachusetts that are nearly identical to what Obama has argued nationally, while disqualifying himself from arguing for Obamacare’s repeal based on Masscare’s failures. He is instead reminding people of the individual mandate’s Republican pedigree at a time when arguments against its constitutionality are gaining momentum. And he wants to take credit for running a laboratory of democracy while denying his experiments have any national consequences.

Finally, is this a legitimate use of government power or a power that the people have the right to give government?